Varghese & Associates, P.C.

10/21/2026

Prosecuting the Cornell case may prove to be a Sisyphean task for New York Attorney General Letitia James: every push forward meets the same evidentiary obstacle. Under New York Penal Law § 130.05, the People must prove lack of consent, and under Criminal Procedure Law § 70.20, every element must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The accuser’s own messages make that burden difficult to meet. Days after the October 2024 incident, she texted one of the accused that her memory was “super clouded” and that “none of the sexual stuff was illegal,” while her later messages and police interview described the encounter as non-consensual. Whichever account she gives at trial, the others become prior inconsistent statements available for impeachment, and conflicting accounts from a complaining witness are the foundation of reasonable doubt. The civil posture is equally telling: a criminal conviction can carry collateral estoppel effect in a later civil action, yet her counsel did not ask the Tompkins County District Attorney to reconsider before filing suit in September. A civil claim, by contrast, requires only a preponderance of the evidence and can resolve through settlement without any criminal finding. Two of the accused are also challenging James’s appointment as special prosecutor, with oral argument set for October 29. Can a case built on a complaining witness’s conflicting statements ever meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard?
Watch Vinoo on NEWSMAX with E.D. Hill and Kyle Lowder.

10/14/2026

Our principal attorney, Vinoo Varghese, was recognized as one of 67 NYU alumni changing the world. NYU has more than 700,000 alumni worldwide, so 67 is a shortlist. The list includes Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee, Jared Kushner, M. Night Shyamalan, Alec Baldwin, Adam Sandler, and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries.

Vinoo Varghese (CAS '96) is an NYU alumnus and criminal defense attorney at Varghese & Associates whose high-profile federal cases and legal commentary have made him one of New York's most recognized defense lawyers.

10/09/2026

A week after Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute Christa Pike, a judge ordered the state to preserve all evidence, including the IV lines, syringes, drugs, 911 calls and communications between officials. Pike survived two doses of pentobarbital, and her attorney says she now has pneumonia and a blood clot. Vinoo explains why the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment is now at the center of this case, and why more court fights are likely before Tennessee could try again.
Watch Vinoo on NewsNation with Anna Kooiman.

09/02/2026

The chaos surrounding the Lindsay Clancy trial spilled outside the courtroom today. A woman was arrested for filming jurors as they left the courthouse, prompting Judge William Sullivan to individually question panel members about whether it affected them. Inside the courtroom, the jury remains deadlocked after five days and roughly 30 hours of deliberation, and the judge has now read the formal "dynamite charge"—a final instruction urging jurors to reach unanimity before a mistrial becomes the likely outcome. The legal question at the center of it all remains complicated: whether Clancy is criminally responsible, a standard jurors were specifically instructed on and one that doesn't turn on public opinion or armchair diagnosis. If this does end in a mistrial and retrial, finding and shielding a new jury from a case this notorious won't be simple. With incidents like today's happening right outside the courthouse, do you think a case this public can ever get an unaffected jury—the first time or the second?
Watch Vinoo on NEWSMAX with Ike Wingate, Host of “Ike Wingate America” on N2 and Aaron Reed.

09/01/2026

Deadlocked. That's the word jurors used today in the Lindsay Clancy trial—and it's exactly what I predicted weeks ago on this show. After roughly 23 hours of deliberation, the jury told Judge William Sullivan they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict, but instead of declaring a mistrial, he sent them back to try again, with deliberations set to resume tomorrow for a fifth day. Legally, this isn't unusual—Massachusetts judges can send a deadlocked jury back multiple times, and may eventually issue what's called a "dynamite charge," a final push to reach consensus before a mistrial is declared. What's harder to measure is the effect of the crowds gathered outside the courthouse in support of Clancy throughout this trial—something I flagged early on as a real factor for jurors to work through, whether consciously or not. If this does end in a mistrial, prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry the case, and finding a jury untouched by months of publicity would be its own challenge. Do you think a jury this deadlocked is a sign the evidence was genuinely too close to call, or a sign the public pressure around this case reached the jury room? Watch Vinoo on NEWSMAX with Krysia Lenzo, E.D. Hill, and Eric Faddis

08/31/2026

Still no verdict—and after nearly 17 hours of deliberation, that might tell you more about this case than any closing argument did. Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial wrapped their third full day Monday without a decision and return Tuesday morning to keep working through more than 80 witnesses and nearly 300 exhibits. On air, I made the point that this case isn't a political one—it's a much older debate about personal responsibility versus excuse, and where a jury is willing to draw that line. The legal standard they actually have to apply is narrow: did Clancy understand, at the moment she acted, that what she was doing was wrong? Both sides agree she was mentally ill; they disagree sharply on whether that illness rose to the level the law requires. Given how long this jury is taking, do you think that's a sign they're seriously wrestling with the mental-state question—or a sign they're deadlocked?

08/26/2026

Testimony officially concluded today in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, with closing arguments set to begin tomorrow before the case goes to the jury. What makes this case legally unusual is that the facts aren't in dispute—Clancy has never denied killing her three children. The entire trial has instead been a battle over a single legal question: whether postpartum psychosis left her unable to understand that what she was doing was wrong, which under Massachusetts law is the actual standard for "lack of criminal responsibility." That standard is stricter than most people assume, and once it's properly raised, prosecutors—not the defense—carry the burden of proving she was criminally responsible. The trial's final rebuttal witness, a forensic psychiatrist, testified Wednesday that Clancy is criminally responsible, though he acknowledged under cross-examination that he's personally treated only two women with postpartum psychosis in his career. As closing arguments approach, what do you think matters more to a jury in a case like this—the expert testimony about her mental state, or the fact that she doesn't deny what she did?
Watch the full video with Vinoo on NewsNation with Marni Hughes.

08/25/2026

Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty Friday to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson—but that plea doesn't automatically end his separate New York state murder case. Double jeopardy protections only kick in if a judge determines the federal and state charges arose from the "same transaction and occurrence," and Manhattan prosecutors have already made clear they're not conceding that point. Hours after the plea, Mangione's defense filed a motion to dismiss the state murder and fi****ms charges on double jeopardy grounds—prosecutors responded the same day, saying they've been "tirelessly preparing" for a state trial. That means Mangione could still face a full state murder trial next month, with New York's second-degree murder charge carrying up to life without parole, even after admitting guilt federally. It's a reminder that federal and state systems can prosecute the same underlying conduct independently—the same way a bank robber can face separate federal and state charges for robbing one bank. So here's the real question: should the state still be allowed to pursue its own separate murder case after a federal guilty plea—or does that risk punishing him twice for the same act?
Watch Vinoo on NEWSMAX with Krysia Lenzo, Kyle Lowder, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Joanna Nieves.

08/14/2026

Day 10 of the Lindsay Clancy trial turned into a credibility fight—and not for Clancy. Her defense attorney pressed her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, on whether she was really qualified to call herself an expert in postpartum psychiatry, given she was barely a month out of residency when she started treating Clancy. It came out that Tufts never met Clancy in person, never used a standard postpartum screening tool, and didn't know Clancy had called a su***de hotline twice. That matters for more than optics—Tufts is also a named defendant in Clancy's separate malpractice lawsuit, meaning the same testimony that helps the criminal defense also builds the civil case against her. Massachusetts law puts the burden on prosecutors to prove Clancy was criminally responsible once her mental state is in question, but as any trial lawyer will tell you, the practical burden of proof often still lands on the side raising the defense. Clancy admits she killed her children. The only question left is whether her mind was working right when she did it. A doctor with one month of experience diagnosed her—and is now defending that diagnosis in court while being sued over it. Would you trust that testimony?
Watch Vinoo on NEWSMAX with Tracy Sabol and Reagan Charleston.

08/13/2026

Luigi Mangione's defense team is asking a New York judge to let his murder trial be broadcast live and to open an overflow courtroom, arguing the current restrictions violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Here's the legal reality: there is no established constitutional right to have a trial televised, so that specific request faces long odds in front of Judge Gregory Carro. The more consequential issue is buried in the same filing—whether the Manhattan DA's office coordinated with the Office of Court Administration to help shape those media restrictions in the first place. The defense has asked for a hearing on exactly that question, and if it turns out coordination did happen and the judge doesn't address it, that's the kind of unresolved issue that can follow a case straight into an appeal. In other words: the cameras fight probably isn't the one to watch—the coordination question is. Do you think defendants should have a right to demand cameras in the courtroom, or does that undermine the fairness of a trial?

Watch Vinoo on NEWSMAX with Tracy Sabol and Reagan Charleston